Zooplankton feeding behavior and particle selection in natural plankton assemblages containing toxic Alexandrium spp.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laboratory experiments suggest that toxic Alexandrium spp. cells are unpalatable to zooplankton grazers, and that toxic cells should be selectively avoided by zooplankton when feeding in mixtures of different prey species. Such avoidance, if practised in the wild, might contribute to harmful bloom formation by reducing losses of Alexandrium spp. due to grazing. In the spring of 1998 and 1999, during 'red tide' outbreaks in the southwestern Gulf of Maine, weekly experiments were performed using field collected natural water samples with ambient phytoplankton and dominant mesozooplankton grazers. The feeding response of Acartia hudsonica, Semibalanus balanoides nauplii, and Calanus finmarchicus was tested during various weeks in natural water samples with low concentrations of Alexandrium spp. (~1000 cells l -1 , typical natural concentrations for this region). Semibalanus sp. nauplii consistently avoided toxic Alexandrium spp. and other dinoflagellates. C. finmarchicus selectively fed on diatoms when they were abundant, and fed non-selectively on all dinoflagellates (except Ceratium spp.) when the spring bloom declined and dinoflagellates dominated. A. hudsonica non-selectively cleared Alexandrium spp. throughout the study periods. During spring Alexandrium spp. bloom formation, if non-selective grazers such as A. hudsonica dominate the zooplankton, Alexandrium spp. losses from grazing depend on grazer abundance (biomass); if selective feeders such as S. balanoides nauplii dominate, then Alexandrium spp. benefits from reduced grazing losses relative to alternative prey.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".